D/judge Made Wrong Decison What Now??

[Mydogsawestie]

What a cracking result

 

Thanks for a great write up

 

As far as costs go - what order did the Judge make...

 

Hi IGNM not heard from the court yet as to when the next hearing will be or regarding whats happening with these costs Restons served on me for hours & hours of there time & court costs etc going into a four figure sum by the way!!! :mad:

 

What happens to these costs for now do I just sit tight for round 2 time?

[I've got no money]

Hi IGNM not heard from the court yet as to when the next hearing will be or regarding whats happening with these costs Restons served on me for hours & hours of there time & court costs etc going into a four figure sum by the way!!! :mad:

 

What happens to these costs for now do I just sit tight for round 2 time?

 

 

The Judge would usually make an Order on the costs at the time of the hearing...the best thing is to wait until you get the Order and then post it up and we can have a look

[supasnooper]

Just caught up with this.

 

Well done MDAW, a fine result and congratulations to you on seeing off the SJ.

 

Hopefully you'll feel more confident if Restons do continue.

 

Make sure you keep hold of Restons costs as you will be entitled to claim 2/3rds of their costs.

 

I'll post the relevant stuff up later.

[Mydogsawestie]

The Judge would usually make an Order on the costs at the time of the hearing...the best thing is to wait until you get the Order and then post it up and we can have a look

Thanks will do...you've been v helpful.

Just caught up with this.

 

Well done MDAW, a fine result and congratulations to you on seeing off the SJ.

 

Hopefully you'll feel more confident if Restons do continue.

 

Make sure you keep hold of Restons costs as you will be entitled to claim 2/3rds of their costs.

 

I'll post the relevant stuff up later.

 

Great always happy to keep abreast of any knowledge I can brush up on

[supasnooper]

here's the docs relating to 2/3rds costs -

 

 

Wulfsohn v Legal Service Commission

 

 

Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Civ 250

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE C/2001/1317

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

(MR JUSTICE COLLINS)

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London WC2

 

Friday, 8th February 2002

B e f o r e :

 

LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN

 

-and-

 

LORD JUSTICE RIX

 

- - - - - - - -

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF WULFSOHN

Applicant

 

- v -

 

LEGAL SERVICE COMMISSION

Defendant

- - - - - - - -

(Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of

Smith Bernal Reporting Limited

190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG

Telephone No: 020 7421 4040

Fax No: 020 7831 8838

Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - - -

 

The Appellant appeared in person

The Respondent did not attend and was unrepresented

- - - - - - - -

J U D G M E N T

(As approved by the Court)

Crown Copyright

Friday, 8th February 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN: Before the court is an appeal brought with the leave of Dyson LJ from a decision of Collins J in relation to costs payable to a litigant in person, Mr Wulfsohn. Collins J had found in favour of Mr Wulfsohn in a judicial review application which was brought by him against the Legal Services Commission who, in substance, refused to give him aid in relation to litigation concerning possession of his house, which was the underlying dispute. Mr Wulfsohn had won his main battle but the only amount of costs that he obtained was £120. That came about in this way. After Collins J had said that Mr Wulfsohn's application for judicial review succeeded, Collins J continued:

“Now, Mr Wulfsohn, you are entitled to any costs you have incurred. You are not entitled to the costs of any research you may have done, but merely to, for example, travel expenses...”

 

2. Collins J was then referred by Mr Wulfsohn to the Civil Procedure Rules. Mr Wulfsohn said:

“[They say] that I should be allowed two thirds of the amount which would have been allowed if I had a representative.”

 

3. To which Collins J said:

“Is that what they say now? I do not think so. MR WULFSOHN: Yes, Rule 48.6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Well,'not entitled to more than two thirds'. It does not say that you are entitled to two thirds.”

 

4. At that point the judge must have been referring to Rule 48.6(2), which reads:

“The costs allowed under this rule must not exceed, except in the case of a disbursement, two-thirds of the amount which would have been allowed if the litigant in person had been represented by a legal representative.”

 

5. There was no reference made in the discussion to paragraph (4) of those rules, which says:

“Subject to paragraph (2), the amount of costs to be allowed to the litigant in person for any item of work to which the costs relate shall, if he fails to prove financial loss, be an amount in respect of the time spent reasonably doing the work at the rate specified in the costs practice direction.”

 

6. The matter was dealt with very swiftly by Collins J on what was no doubt a busy day. He initially said:

“I cannot make a summary assessment. You have to set it out in detail, if you say you are entitled to it.”

 

7. There was then some discussion about photocopying, and Collins J said:

“... a litigant in person is not normally entitled to costs of time spent on research, and essentially you cannot claim for any time you spent doing anything.”

 

8. There was then a discussion about the photocopying and at the end of the day Collins J awarded £120, largely as a result of calculations in relation to photocopying and a train journey, and he said:

“Does that sounds reasonable?”

 

9. Miss White, who appeared for the Commission said:

“My Lord, yes.

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: In that case, to avoid further costs and problems I will order that you are paid your costs in the sum of £120.”

 

10. Mr Wulfsohn tried to take the matter further but he got fairly short shrift from Collins J and nothing further appeared.

 

11. What led Dyson LJ to give leave to this court was his fear that Collins J had not taken into account what should have been the right approach to a litigant in person. If one reads together 48.6(2) and (4) one sees that, in principle, a litigant in person is entitled to compensation for his time, and the rate is fixed by Statutory Instrument and at all relevant times was £9.25 per hour. But there is a cap which is that however long a litigant spends in person doing things he cannot recover more than, broadly speaking, two-thirds of what his legal representatives would have done if he had had a lawyer.

 

12. In the present case it is to my mind obvious from the nature of the case that a good deal of time has been spent by Mr Wulfsohn on the exercise, and he is, I would hold clearly entitled to considerably more than the £120 which the judge gave him. I was originally minded, therefore, to send the matter to a costs judge to work out. However, that would have increased the costs of matters very substantially.

 

13. We have not been helped by the presence of anybody from the Legal Services Commission. Their position has been communicated to the court in a letter of 8th November 2001 which they wrote after having received the order by Dyson LJ granting permission to appeal. In that letter they say that the Commission received Mr Wulfsohn's notice of appeal and in an attempt to save costs they wrote to Mr Wulfsohn asking him to provide them with a cost schedule outlining the costs that he was claiming at litigant-in-person rates. It is likely that if he were to produce such a schedule the Commission would agree to pay those costs so as to avoid the costs of this appeal:

“To date, Mr Wulfsohn has not responded to our request. In the circumstances the Commission is not proposing to be represented at this appeal and accepts that it will be liable to pay such sum as the court, if it allows this appeal, orders to be paid at litigant-in-person rates to Mr Wulfsohn.”

 

14. That, I suspect, explains their absence in front of the court today. It seem to us that, given that that was their broad approach and given that Mr Wulfsohn had told us that he had served them with a rough costs schedule on Monday of this week and with a slightly less rough costs schedule on Wednesday, in each of which he set out (as he had done in front of Dyson LJ) that he had been engaged for about 1200 hours plus on research, and given that they have not turned up and that they are trying to save costs, it would be sensible for us to take evidence from Mr Wulfsohn as to the costs that he had incurred; and so we did.

 

15. It appears that the history of this matter is a relatively complex one. The Commission having taken a decision that Mr Wulfsohn did not qualify for legal aid he applied for permission to judicially review that decision. That was turned down by Sullivan J on paper. He then applied in person in front of Harrison J and it was turned down again. He then settled a notice of appeal and came before Brooke LJ where he turned up in person again and this time the appeal was allowed and leave was granted to move for judicial review. The matter went back to the administrative court.

 

16. There was a preliminary hearing in front of Turner J in relation to a dispute over discovery. In the course of that hearing we are told that the Legal Services Commission produced a bill for the purposes of an immediate assessment of costs of £1200 in relation to that application. However, Turner J said that costs were to abide by the event. He did not himself assess them one way or the other, but he ordered the costs were to be in the case.

 

17. The matter then came as a substantive hearing before Collins J and this time counsel appeared on the other side. Collins J gave a careful judgment which ran to 55 paragraphs. In the course of it he examined a considerable number of documents and the very complicated regulations which govern the affairs of the Commission, and he decided at the end, as I have indicated, that Mr Wulfsohn had won. But because the costs order had been so unsatisfactory from Mr Wulfsohn's point of view, he then had a hearing in front of Dyson LJ and finally a hearing in front of us as well.

 

18. What are we to do? We are bidden by the Civil Procedure Rules to exercise our powers in such a way that the case is dealt with in ways which are proportionate to the amount of money involved, the importance of the case, the complexity of the issues and the financial position of each party so as to ensure that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly, and allotting to it an appropriate share of the court's resources whilst taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases. It is those considerations which have led us to an endeavour to reach a just solution in this case with which both parties should be able to live.

 

19. There is one other document which was produced to us today which is from Waller & Company Solicitors which is dated today, and says:

“On the limited information that we have been provided by yourself [that is with Dr Wulfsohn], and the Citizens' Advice Bureau in the Royal Courts of Justice and having seen at a very preliminary stage the documentation with regards the above matter we would estimate that the legal cost would be in the region of £15,000 to 20,000 plus VAT.”

 

20. We have taken that into account, though it is, of course, a very rough-and-ready assessment. Doing the best we can we think an appropriate approach is as follows. We accept from Mr Wulfsohn that he has spent a very considerable amount of time on this.

 

21. There have been a considerable number of hearings. The matter is of importance and complexity, as is shown by the fact that the Legal Services Commission, which must know its own regulations backwards, one would have thought, thought that a bill for £1,200 was appropriate merely for a hearing in relation to an order for disclosure. The hearing in front of Collins J was clearly a longer one. The applicant had to get all the documents in order (which he did) and produced a long bundle for them. He must have done a lot of research, and he has told us on evidence (which I have no reason to disbelieve) that he spent well in excess of 1200 hours altogether on this exercise so far. It seems to me that the right course in these circumstances is to start with the cap, if you like, as to what this exercise would have cost if it had gone to lawyers in the first place. Doing the best I can on the information in front of us, and being extremely rough-and-ready about it, I would put that figure at £15,000, which means that there would be a cap in relation to Dr Wulfsohn of £10,000. On top of that he does claim one or two things which are not caught by the cap in his schedule. I regard Dr Wulfsohn as having spent an amount of hours on this exercise which, at a rate of £9.25 per hour, would take him above the cap. I regard him as being entitled in principle to the figure of £10,000, to which I would add the charges for photocopying, postage and travel which, between them, come to £460.

 

22. I would allow the appeal, and I would award him costs of £10,460 in total.

 

23. I ought to say that there is a hint in the correspondence that it was arguable that Dr Wulfsohn had agreed to the figure of £120 settled on by the judge but, in my judgment, that is not a fair reading of what happened at the end of the day in front of Collins J.

 

24. LORD JUSTICE RIX: I agree.

(Appeal allowed; Applicant awarded £10,460).

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

Mealing-McLeod v The Common Professional Examination Board [2000] All ER (D) 436

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

BUCKLEY J

 

30 MARCH 2000

 

APPROVED JUDGMENT

 

1. MR JUSTICE BUCKLEY: This is an appeal from & decision of Costs Judge Campbell on detailed assessment of the Claimant's costs, pursuant to the Order of the Court of Appeal dated 18th February 1999.

 

2. The Judge carried out a detailed assessment on 6th and 8th September 1999 and 20th October 1999. One of the items challenged by the Defendant was the Claimant's claim to an hourly expense rate of £80. She maintained an entitlement to that rate because she claimed to have suffered pecuniary loss. The Judge reserved judgment on that issue and gave his decision in writing on 5th November 1999. He subsequently provided written reasons for his final decision including his award of costs of the detailed assessment to the Defendant. He restricted the Claimant to the charging rate for Litigants in Person of £9.25.

 

3. The Final Costs certificate dated 25th February 2000 assessed the total costs at £1,732.92; the costs of detailed assessment due to the Defendant at £5,019.80 (including VAT) and therefore directed payment of £3,286.88 to the Defendant within 14 days.

 

4. Broadly speaking, a Judge will allow an appeal such as this if satisfied that the decision of the Costs Judge was wrong: CPR 47.26 (2). That is easy to apply to matters of principle or construction. However, where the appeal includes challenges to the details of the assessment, such as hours allowed in respect of a particular item, the task in hand is one of assessment or judgment rather than principle. There is no absolute answer. Notwithstanding that the Judge to whom the appeal is made may sit with Assessors, as I did here, the appeal is not a re-hearing and given the nature of the Costs Judge's task and his expertise I would, usually, regard it as undesirable for it to be so: compare CPR 47.26 (1)(a) with 47.26 (2).

 

5. I do not think it would helpful or even legitimate for me to add phrases or adjectives to the approach I have identified. But since the appeal is not a re-hearing, I would regard it as inappropriate for the Judge on appeal to be drawn into an exercise calculated to add a little here or knock off a little there. If the Judge's attention is drawn to items which with the advice of his Assessors he feels should, in fairness, be altered, doubtless he will act. That is a matter for his good judgment. Permission to appeal should not be granted simply to allow yet another trawl through the Bill, in the absence of some sensible and significant complaint. If an appeal turns out to be no more than such an exercise the sanction of costs may be used.

 

6. I thought it right to state the approach I shall adopt, since this appeal does include, at Ground 5, complaints concerning the hours allowed in respect of the individual items.

 

7. I turn to the more substantial points raised by the Claimant. I shall follow the order of the Grounds in the Notice of Appeal.

 

8. Ground 1.

 

9. This is a complaint that the Costs Judge adopted a wrong approach to assessing the amount he allowed to the Claimant as a Litigant in Person.

 

10. CPR 48.6 deals with Litigants in Person. It provides:

 

· “(2) The costs allowed under this Rule must not exceed, except in the case of a disbursement, two thirds of the amount which would have been allowed if the Litigant in Person had been represented by legal representative.

 

· (3) Costs allowed to a Litigant in Person shall be -

· a. such costs which would have been allowed if the work had been done or the disbursements made by a legal representative on the Litigant in Person's behalf,

· …….

 

· (4) Subject to paragraph (2), the amount of costs to be allowed to the Litigant in Person for any item of work for which costs relate shall, if he fails to prove a financial loss, be an amount in respect of the time spent reasonably doing the work at the rate specified in the Costs Practice Direction.”

 

11. In Morris v. Wiltshire & Woodspring District Council (unreported) 16th January 1998 Jacob J. said:

 

· ...... find out in respect of the item what, at the Litigant in Person charging rate, the total is. Compare that with two thirds of the notional solicitor rate. Use the lower of the two items .......”

 

12. I am content with that summary and gratefully adopt it.

 

13. It is not clear to me that the Judge adopted a wrong approach generally. However, I and my Assessors independently concluded that in some instances the time allowances which he arrived were somewhat short. We wondered whether he had kept in mind that it is appropriate, in a proper case, to allow a Litigant in Person more time for a particular task than would be allowed to a solicitor. A solicitor's charging rate includes or takes account of the fact that he has support staff, secretaries, messengers and so forth. A Litigant in Person, for example, must himself post letters, take flies to court and photocopy documents. “The time spent reasonably doing the work….” mentioned in CPR 48.6 (4) permits a reasonable assessment of time spent by the Litigant in Person and should reflect those matters. It is in view of this that, advised by my Assessors, I have allowed some uplifts to the time spent on certain items of the Bill. I list those in due course.

 

14. Ground 2.

 

15. The Claimant pointed to the amount awarded to her, in particular in respect of the Court of Appeal hearing, and the costs allowed to the Defendant in respect of the detailed assessment and submitted they were disproportionate. She referred me to CPR 44.5 and the over-riding objective.

 

16. The submission, I am afraid, is misconceived. If, as was the case here, a Litigant in Person is restricted to the Litigant in Person charging rate of £9.25 an hour, it is inevitable the costs of the other side, if legally represented, are likely to be very much higher. The proportionality mentioned in CPR 44.5 is that the costs incurred by a party must be proportionate to the amount of the claim and the litigation generally. It does not mean that the costs of a legally represented party must be reduced below a reasonable level of remuneration because the other side is a Litigant in Person restricted to £9.25 an hour.

 

17. Ground 3.

 

18. This was perhaps the Claimant's main bone of contention. Her submission was that the Costs Judge was wrong to restrict her to £9.25 per hour; he should have accepted her evidence of financial loss and allowed £80 an hour or at least some higher rate of charging.

 

19. On 8th September 1999 the Judge ordered the Claimant to make and file a witness statement in support of her application for a rate of £80 per hour. He adjourned the detailed assessment to Wednesday, 20th October in order to give time to the Claimant to produce her evidence. At the adjourned hearing the Defendant, not having filed evidence in reply, relied upon argument.

 

20. The Judge referred to RSC Order 62, Rule 18 (3) which provided that where the Litigant in Person has not suffered any pecuniary loss he shall be allowed not more than £9.25 per hour in respect of time reasonably spent. He also noted that the CPR had come into effect after the date of the Order giving rise to the costs but before the hearing of the detailed assessment. He referred to CPR 48.6 which I have already mentioned and noted that the Costs Practice Direction provided for £9.25 per hour.

 

21. As to the Claimant's evidence, the Judge correctly noted that the Claimant was in paid employment as a Principal Consultant with KPMG on a basic salary of £36,000. That, in essence, her claim to loss was that through spending time pursuing her appeal she had not met her performance target with KPMG and lost a bonus of £3,700. In addition the Claimant claimed to have undertaken legal work for private clients since 1996 and that owing to her commitments to the appeal she had turned away two potentially lucrative matters. One offering a fee of £2,000 - £3,000, the other £10,000. I do not propose to recite in detail the Judge's reasoning, reference may be made to his Reasons dated 5th November 1999. However, in his Reasons the Judge pointed out that the Claimant had produced no evidence verifying her earnings and bonuses in 1996 and 1997 when there was no appeal to work on. Nor had any evidence been placed before him of the amount that the Claimant earned from her private legal work after she began to take cases in 1996. He was thus unable to make any comparison between the period in question and her alleged earnings in previous years. He said this:

 

· “It ought to have been a straight forward task to set out in her witness statement the sums earned from private legal work since there would need to have been a return to the Inland Revenue for this income. However, as I have said, no information was before me demonstrating a downturn in business at the material period which might have been attributable to the appeal and therefore supportive of the claim for pecuniary loss.”

 

22. No further evidence was proffered to me and, I might add, there was no evidence from KPMG to the effect that the Claimant had lost her bonus in the relevant year or for any particular reason. The Judge had pointed out that there was no evidence to show that the alleged fees for legal work could have been earned during the material period, in other words, that the work could have been completed within that time, indeed he inferred it could not. He also found a complete lack of evidence as to the Claimant's charging rate for her legal work and hence any rational basis for the £80 an hour charged.

 

23. The Judge's conclusions were expressed in these terms:

 

· “These factors led me to conclude (as the Chief Taxing Master did in Mainwaring) that the Claimant has gone part of the way to showing that she is in a situation that a pecuniary loss might arise. However, she has failed to produce any evidence as to what that loss actually was and in those circumstances she can recover only the rate prescribed by the Rule, namely £9.25 per hour.”

 

24. The reference to Mainwaring is to Mainwaring v. Goldtech Investments Ltd (1997) 1 All ER. 467.

 

25. On the evidence I have seen, which was before the Judge, I agree with those conclusions.

 

26. Ground 4.

 

27. This Ground concerned the costs of detailed assessment which the Master awarded to the Defendant.

 

28. By letter dated 5th August 1999 the Defendant offered to pay the Claimant £2,500 for her costs. The offer was not accepted. The Practice Direction to CPR 47 provides that an offer by the paying party should usually be made within 14 days after service of the Notice of Commencement. In this case the Claimant's first Bill gave insufficient details and was ordered by the Judge to be withdrawn. The revised Bill was sent under covered of letter dated 15th July 1999. The CPE Board would have had to consider the question of making an offer and I do not consider the offer was made significantly late.

 

29. The Judge expressly referred to the general rule under CPR 47.18 to the effect that the receiving party is normally entitled to his costs of the detailed assessment proceedings. However, CPR 47.18 (2) provides that the court must have regard to all the circumstances including:

 

· “a. The conduct of all the parties;

 

· b. The amount, if any, by which the Bill of Costs has been reduced; and

 

· c. Whether it was reasonable for a party to claim the costs of the particular item or to dispute that item.”

 

30. Further, under CPR 47.19 the court must take into account any offer in deciding who shall pay the costs of the assessment proceedings. The Judge clearly had these matters in mind and in his final Reasons pointed out that had the Claimant succeeded on the “pecuniary loss” issue he would have allowed her almost six and a half thousand pounds. In the event the point was decided against her and recalculating the costs at £9.25 per hour she was left with a little over £1,000. Which when disbursements were added still fell significantly short of the Defendant's offer. Clearly the Judge took the relevant factors into account and I can see no evidence he considered anything that was inappropriate to consider. In all the circumstances I consider the Judge's conclusion to be a reasonable one and see no reason to interfere with it.

 

31. Ground 5.

 

32. Under this Ground the Claimant challenged the hours allowed by the Judge in respect of the various items in her Bill.

 

33. As I have indicated I would not readily make minor adjustments to a Costs Judge's assessment of hours spent. However, in view of the remarks I made under Ground 1 in this judgment I have, with the benefit of advice from my Assessors, made the following adjustments which I believe meet the justice of the case:

 

2(6) Obtaining photocopies.

Allow 1 hour extra.

 

2(7) Binding and Indexing

Allow 1 hour extra.

 

2(8 ) Lodging Bundles

Allow 3 hours extra.

 

2(10) Obtaining transcripts

Allow 15 minutes extra.

 

3(14) Preparation of Bundle

Allow 1 hour extra.

 

3(15) Binding

Allow 1 hour extra.

 

3(16) Lodging and Service of Bundles

Allow 2 hours extra.

 

4(25) Obtaining transcripts

Allow 15 minutes extra.

 

6(33) Attendance at Royal Courts of Justice, Public Trust Office and Civil Appeals Office.

Allow 2 hours extra

 

6(34) Attendance at Public Trust Office

Allow 20 minutes extra.

 

8(46) General organisation of files

Allow 1 hour extra.

 

11(59) Routine correspondence

Allow 6 hours extra plus a notional £15 for the cost of postage and FAXs.

 

The above items total 18.83 hours plus £15, i.e. £189.18.

 

34. I would also allow £40.25 which it would be reasonable to allow under item 10 of the Bill. 10 (56) included £5 expenses and 10 (58 ) included a £35.25 disbursement. The Judge simply allowed 6 hours and 40 minutes for item 10 as a whole and overlooked or disallowed these two items of disbursements.

 

35. At the hearing of this appeal my Assessors noticed that the Final Costs certificate was mathematically incorrect when compared with the items which had actually been allowed by the Costs Judge. Subsequent correspondence with the parties enabled agreement to be reached as follows as to what the Judge had allowed:

 

Time spent (including preparation of Bill)

£830.77

 

Disbursements (including SCCO Court Fee)

£909.12

 

Costs awarded to receiving party on set aside application

£158.00

 

Costs awarded to paying party (including VAT)

£4,136.00

 

Balance in favour of paying party

£2,238.11 (not £3,286.88 as stated in the certificate).

 

36. I am grateful to the parties for co-operating with my Assessors in order to make these corrections.

 

37. Thus the appeal is allowed to the extent of allowing the extra amounts indicated under Ground 5 and the Certificate will be redrawn to reflect those items and the figures in paragraph 35. above.

[creditcardmug]

I have just caught up with this, i remember helping you at the start, but didn't feel able to help properly when things became more complicated, im glad other caggers came in to help from there on

 

I must say i am very impressed with the way you have conducted your self as a litigant in person, and feel sure you will win through in the end, with the help of supersnooper and others.

Well done so far, and good luck

[Mydogsawestie]

I have just caught up with this, i remember helping you at the start, but didn't feel able to help properly when things became more complicated, im glad other caggers came in to help from there on

 

I must say i am very impressed with the way you have conducted your self as a litigant in person, and feel sure you will win through in the end, with the help of supersnooper and others.

Well done so far, and good luck

 

Thanks CCM could not have started any of this without yours & some of the others input from the start. I have tried to stay strong from the beginning despite since Feb being a very stressful time (with work, my health (now to have an op) & this unnecessary court stuff when we were paying in a debt mngmt plan getting added to it). I know I am not out of the waters yet but nevertheless will continue to deal with whatever comes my way when it does. Your input was very valuable in my times of need (thank you).

 

Onto Supanooper thanks for the case law for Litigants In Persons posted above as IGNM mentioned too I will wait to see what directions from the court arrive on my doorstep soon. Watch this space.

[mandyjayne]

Well done MDAW,

 

Just caught up with you again, you've done some fantastic work..!

 

I know its not over for you yet, much the same with me, but we are getting there, both with positive results so far , lets hope the good luck continues! Looks like that "red triangle" i advised did you the world of good;)...well done once again and will catch up with you soon.

 

all the best

 

MJ:)

[Mydogsawestie]

Well done MDAW,

 

Just caught up with you again, you've done some fantastic work..!

 

I know its not over for you yet, much the same with me, but we are getting there, both with positive results so far , lets hope the good luck continues! Looks like that "red triangle" i advised did you the world of good;)...well done once again and will catch up with you soon.

 

all the best

 

MJ:)

 

Thanks MJ will pop on over from time to time & keep my eyes peeled ;-)

[supasnooper]

As to costs.

 

You can submit a request for your cost to Restons and a copy to the Court.

 

You will need to detail the time you've spent researching your case, postage, parking costs to attaend court, time off work to attend court etc.

 

As I've stated earlier, you are entitled to claim 2/3rdes of Restons costs.

 

Have a look at this thread from post #14 as there's plenty of stuff on wasted costs - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/206038-cabot-ding-ding-round.html#post2272500

[I've got no money]

 

As I've stated earlier, you are entitled to claim 2/3rdes of Restons costs.

 

 

I'm not sure if that is technically correct - My understanding is that the rule says that you can claim up to two thirds of the amount of costs what a Solicitor would claim. You still have to justify the work that you've done.

 

I s'pose that using the amount that Restons claim as a starting point is as good a place as any however they have acted for the claimant - the costs that a firm of Solicitors would charge to defend the claim may well be different and can potentially be more.

 

At this stage you need to work out what your costs are - its' actually a fairly boring process you have to add all of the times together...

[supasnooper]

I'm not sure if that is technically correct - My understanding is that the rule says that you can claim up to two thirds of the amount of costs what a Solicitor would claim. You still have to justify the work that you've done.

 

I s'pose that using the amount that Restons claim as a starting point is as good a place as any however they have acted for the claimant - the costs that a firm of Solicitors would charge to defend the claim may well be different and can potentially be more.

 

At this stage you need to work out what your costs are - its' actually a fairly boring process you have to add all of the times together...

 

IGNM - happy to be corrected.

[I've got no money]

Sometimes I feel as if I'm being really pedantic...

[supasnooper]

Nah....... I think it's called getting it right.

[Mydogsawestie]

I s'pose that using the amount that Restons claim as a starting point is as good a place as any however they have acted for the claimant - the costs that a firm of Solicitors would charge to defend the claim may well be different and can potentially be more.

 

At this stage you need to work out what your costs are - its' actually a fairly boring process you have to add all of the times together...

 

There costs were £506 (exc court fees etc) so I take it I would only be able to claim £337 if its 2/3rds then?

 

Surely a court will recognise that a LIP will have likely spent more time on a case than a solicitor (esp a solicitor who no doubt could do it blindfolded!)

 

Hand on heart I could say at £9.25hr (is it?) my hours of time with Caggers & researching case law & legislation alone would come to more than the £337. I've given up many a weekend & evenings till the early hours doing this. Then there has been stationery, printing ink costs, Special Delivery & Recorded del postal costs, Court attendance amounting to a day off work, car parking to drop forms in and to attend court etc

 

How does this work then now and at what time do I raise my costs...also do I do it by serving them a Letter before action first re this, then if they dont comply is it then I do an N252 (from what I've read?)

 

Or should I still wait for court to get in touch first..I'm

 

Whatever I get I will so want to donate some of it to CAG ....without the CAG forum and the advice I have received on here so far I dont know what state i'd been in without it!!!

[sunflower99]

HI mydogasweetie

Surely you do not have tp pay Restons/MBNA their costs they claim they incurred for SJ as you won that round,As they lost they shiould pay their own court expenses plus yours surely?

[I've got no money]

There costs were £506 (exc court fees etc) so I take it I would only be able to claim £337 if its 2/3rds then?

 

Surely a court will recognise that a LIP will have likely spent more time on a case than a solicitor (esp a solicitor who no doubt could do it blindfolded!)

 

Unfortunately the rule is very strict - the court does recognise that an LIP takes more time - the average Solicitor will charge £150 plus per hour - two thirds of that is £100 - so it means that for every hour that a Solicitor would claim for - you can claim for 10 hours

 

Hand on heart I could say at £9.25hr (is it?) my hours of time with Caggers & researching case law & legislation alone would come to more than the £337. I've given up many a weekend & evenings till the early hours doing this. Then there has been stationery, printing ink costs, Special Delivery & Recorded del postal costs, Court attendance amounting to a day off work, car parking to drop forms in and to attend court etc

 

Stationary, ink, SD and RD, car parking, photocopying etc are expenses which are extra to the two thirds rule and are paid in addition to the two thirds costs

 

 

As far as the costs that the other side are concerned - I think that you argue that their costs aren't relevant and that the starting point would be to take what a Solicitor would have charged to defend you...

 

How does this work then now and at what time do I raise my costs...also do I do it by serving them a Letter before action first re this, then if they dont comply is it then I do an N252 (from what I've read?)

 

Or should I still wait for court to get in touch first..I'm

 

I would suggest that you work out your costs and wait until you get the Order. As soon as that arrives you then write to the other side telling them how much you want and giving them 14 days to pay. If it isn't sorted out that way you then go down the N252

 

 

Whatever I get I will so want to donate some of it to CAG ....without the CAG forum and the advice I have received on here so far I dont know what state i'd been in without it!!!

 

I've made a few comments in bold italics

[I've got no money]

The other thing of course is that the costs they've quoted are for the SJ hearing - you're entitled to costs for the whole of the case.

 

So your costs of responding to the original claim and of drafting both the original defence and any amended defence are in addition to the costs of responding to the SJ application

[sunflower99]

Hi IGNM

Helpful post:)

[Mydogsawestie]

The other thing of course is that the costs they've quoted are for the SJ hearing - you're entitled to costs for the whole of the case.

 

So your costs of responding to the original claim and of drafting both the original defence and any amended defence are in addition to the costs of responding to the SJ application

 

So more than £337 then for sure! Thought that sum was far too low. Good to hear the other bits are in addition too. Thanks for the advice, will gather my sums together in the meantime & wait for the court order as you said.

[bazaar]

Also if youve had to take time off work, add that in, every minute you account for is a bigger kick in the pants for them, if only you could deliver your demand with a big grin on your face:D

[I've got no money]

Also if youve had to take time off work, add that in, every minute you account for is a bigger kick in the pants for them, if only you could deliver your demand with a big grin on your face:D

 

The thing about time off work - if you claim for missing work due to a hearing - you claim either £9.25 per hour OR the loss of earnings - you can't claim both for the same activity. Loss of earning is as bazaar points out an expense so it is in addition to anything claimed under the two thirds rule

[sunflower99]

sounds like it best to go for £9.25 per hour then rather than loss of earnings from work or having to claim for giveing up a precious holiday day or day of over it:D

[bazaar]

Well it could get messy, but IMHO if the other side are going to say ' we aint paying that bit' maybe a day off work listed cannot be denied by them, hopefully also you earn more than 9.25 an hour

[sunflower99]

i hope everyone who MBNA actually goes as far as draggiing into the courtroom claims every penny they can from them and it will maybe make them think twice before they drag people into court when they know they have not got the original or a properly executed agreeemnt. As people point out these crediters keep bleating on about how we spent the money and must pay it back but quite conviently dont mention the fact that we probably paid back all and possibly a lot more in a lot of cases of the orginal money borrowed due to their horrendous interest rates unfair charges and securitisation of our cards debts Which bankerrhymeswith if i understood him right believes that when they securitise our accounts they securitise it on the money before we even spent it:eek: and when they write debt of get most of their money back from insurance and even after that make a few bucks from selling our debts onto other scummy pondfeeder further down the food chain for peanuts so they got even less moral right bleating to a DJ that we spent the money and must pay it back when they not even got the correct original paperwork they baseing their claim on!

Edited July 21, 2009 by sunflower99